Trans women are still women

[Lostcat]

AIBU to share what the Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of women in the Equalities Act does and does not do/say/mean.

Although there are now moves to take the ruling and embed discrimination against trans women into uk law, this was not the intention of the Supreme Court judgement. In fact, the judges made it very explicit that politicians, media and activists shouldn’t seek to weaponise the judgement for political gain. Unfortunately that is exactly what people (including a whole host of mumsnetters) are doing.

So what does the judgement do?

Myth: the UK Supreme Court says trans women are not women

Myth: the ruling means trans women can’t claim legal protection as women

Myth: the ruling says you can ban trans women from women’s loos or other women only spaces

What the ruling actually says:
“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the [Equality Act] 2010.”

The ruling says that in sex-based provisions under the Equalities Act 2010, sex means “biological sex” and refers to one of two biological sexes.

The ruling reiterates that trans women are protected from sex discrimination as women - because they experience the same sexism as women do.

The ruling affirms also that trans people are protected under the law from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.

As before (and as the law has stated since 2004) trans women, with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate, should be treated as women and given access to the relevant women’s services - as before, an exception may be made under limited circumstances where the need to exclude trans women may be proportionate (the law gives women’s refuges as an example of a space where this may be necessary, sometimes).

The ruling merely states that in legal references to “sex” the words “man” and “woman” in the sex discrimination clauses of the equalities act refer to “biological” women and men - it is merely about the use of language in legal cases of discrimination.

The very real impact of this on trans and non-binary people’s lives comes from misinterpretations of what is meant or intended by the ruling.
The trans community is fearful because of the inevitable spin manufactured by biased news media and the powerful gender critical lobby (including wealthy and high profile people such as JK Rowling who claim they are “silenced” by trans advocates).

If you have an SRY gene and functional testosterone receptors you are male. If not you are female. I'm pretty sure I gave this definition on another thread you were on OP

We do understand this. It's because many, if not most, trans identifying men are autogynophiles. Or they are just MRAs who enjoy trangressing women's boundaries. Third spaces dont do it for them in either case.

As I understand it, sex discrimination (as in, saying one sex can do this and another can’t) is fine, where there is a permitted reason for doing this. So you can hold women only swimming sessions because there would be a reason for this that is permitted by the Act.

So excluding males is fine when it is female only.

I think, but I am not sure, that transwomen sessions only (or transmen sessions only) may also be permitted. I would think they are not terribly likely to be offered in most places as they may not be exotically to run. But trans organisations may like to campaign for them.

But running a session that says ‘this is for women and transwomen’ in the context of swimming would, I think, be far tricker. Because the aim can’t be the provision of a single sex service in circumstances where that is permitted. So what would the aim be that would justify the exclusion of men who weren’t transwomen?

What is it based on then?

There are some cases for example Klinefelter syndrome where a person has XXY chromosomes but those people are males with a sex disorder only found in males.

The overwhelming majority of children who are abused are attacked by family members/close family friends. By your logic this means all child safeguarding outside the home should be scrapped. No DBS checks, no certification nothing.

Meanwhile most people realise these checks are in place because SOME people pose a threat to children, ALL people have to come under the same scrutiny. The end goal is to protect children irrespective of hurt feelings.

Single sex facilities works in the same way. Because SOME men (or non female people if you prefer) pose a threat, ALL men are excluded. The end goal is to protect women irrespective of hurt feelings.

I think that will happen. Going by the ECHR statement.

I doubt it’s the first choice but now women are out, it’s not our remit, it’ll be what is left to do.

You really don’t. There are very few people who do not understand precisely what the definition means, and their lack of comprehension is entirely of their own choosing.

The ruling reiterates that trans women are protected from sex discrimination as women - because they experience the same sexism as women do

I had missed this @Lostcat . I thought the ruling meant TW had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and also sex as in their male biological sex.

The most oppressed type of woman to ever exist, a white, straight, male lady?

Yep.They will have to fight for their own spaces and combat the problem of male violence on their own. Just like women did.

I don't think you do - unless you check their chromosomes.

Some are evident. Some are not.

How is it 'vindictive' to assert our rights to female only spaces?

Again the old 'how does it affect you'.... one male in a female only space affects all women.

I don't mind the addition of inclusive spaces, as long as female only spaces exist alongside.

A trans woman is not a woman. They are a TRANS woman aka a biological man claiming to be a woman.

Never ceases to amaze me how people fail to understand this.

A male with a swinging cock (or even one who chopped it off) does not have a chromosomal disorder. He was correctly observed as male at birth.

Some males were incorrectly observed female at birth and vice versa. They are not transwomen in any definition and never were.

Yes. Like Pip Bunce. Who did get an award.

Funny how nobody had any trouble knowing the difference until about 20 years ago then.

I’m so glad my home country is not this batshit crazy and we don’t need judges to define what a woman is 😳

The judgment means what it says and the media and GC posters on here are right about it.

There will be no legislation about trans rights. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Most trans identified men don’t want to have third spaces. The whole point for them is the violation of women-only spaces. That’s how they get validation. for example, there was a third category created for competitive swimming and there were no entries.

That’s why they’re so angry now. Because they can no longer brute force themselves into women’s spaces while claiming victimhood.

This. Or they use the 3rd spaces provided for disabled users or (and this may be hard for some to comprehend) they do what many many women have been forced to do for the last 10 years and self-exclude, either by not taking part or by going home to shower there in privacy. It really isn’t that hard.

• spannasaurus If you have an SRY gene and functional testosterone receptors you are male. If not you are female. I'm pretty sure I gave this definition on another thread you were on OP

Never ceases to amaze me how people fail to understand this.

It's in their interest to not understand it.

No they are not and never will be.

Judges weren't defining what a woman is, they were defining how the law should be interpreted 🙄

A woman is an Adult Human Female. A biological woman as described in this judgement.

There, now you look silly.